[REVIEW]: DRDMannTurb: A python package for scalable, data-driven synthetic turbulence

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@alizma<!--end-author-handle-- (Alexey Izmailov) Repository: https://github.com/METHODS-Group/DRDMannTurb Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@HaoZeke<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @paroomk, @olivecha Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4c1af9b22a5861f5be343ba20133d24c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4c1af9b22a5861f5be343ba20133d24c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4c1af9b22a5861f5be343ba20133d24c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4c1af9b22a5861f5be343ba20133d24c)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@paroomk & @olivecha, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @HaoZeke know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @paroomk

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.06 s (1355.5 files/s, 140389.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          41           1360           2102           3712
reStructuredText                23            295            392            158
CSV                              4              0              0            128
YAML                             6             11              9             99
Markdown                         2             36              0             72
TeX                              1             13              0             41
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
JavaScript                       2              0              0              7
JSON                             1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            82           1727           2511           4255
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   200  Alexey Izmailov
    56  mjachi
    32  gdeskos
    27  Matthew Meeker
    10  Brendan Keith
     1  Georgios (Yorgos) Deskos
     1  dependabot[bot]

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1063/5.0064394 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7254149 is OK
- 10.1017/S0022112094001886 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-8920(97)00036-2 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 886

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[paroomk]

Review checklist for @paroomk

Conflict of interest

• [x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• [ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/METHODS-Group/DRDMannTurb?
• [ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@alizma) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• [ ] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• [ ] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• [x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [ ] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• [ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• [x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• [ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• [ ] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[HaoZeke]

@paroomk @olivecha could you update me on the progress please?

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot remind @paroomk and @olivecha in three days

[editorialbot]

@paroomk and @olivecha doesn't seem to be a reviewer or author for this submission.

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot add @paroomk as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@paroomk is already included in the reviewers list

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot add @olivecha as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@olivecha is already included in the reviewers list

[paroomk]

@paroomk @olivecha could you update me on the progress please?

Hi @HaoZeke, I am working on verifying the functionality now. I am hoping to finish this by next weekend (July 14).

I have also submitted an issue regarding the inclusion of examples and documentation in the pre-compiled wheels.